Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Greg Ganske on Social Security


Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable.

Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would raise the amount individuals may contribute to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts and to 401[k] plans and make pensions plans more portable
Reference: Bill sponsored by Portman, R-OH; Bill HR 10 ; vote number 2001-96 on May 2, 2001

Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.

Vote to pass a bill that would reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that is taxable from 85 to 50 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $25,000 and married couples with incomes over $32,000. The revenues that would be lost for the Medicare trust fund would be replaced by money from the general fund.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX; Bill HR 4865 ; vote number 2000-450 on Jul 27, 2000

Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox.

Amending the Social Security Lockbox bill to require that any budget surplus cannot be spent until the solvency of Social Security and Medicare is guaranteed.
Reference: Motion to Recommit introduced by Rangel, D-NY; Bill HR 1259 ; vote number 1999-163 on May 26, 1999

Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings.

Ganske signed the Contract with America:

[As part of the Contract with America, within 100 days we pledge to bring to the House Floor the following bill]:

The Senior Citizens Fairness Act:
Raise the Social Security earnings limit, which currently forces seniors out of the workforce; repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security; and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.
Source: Contract with America 93-CWA9 on Sep 27, 1994

Supports individual savings accounts and work incentives.

Ganske adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:

Congress must address the rapidly approaching disaster of a depleted Social Security system. Within the next ten years "baby boomers" will start retiring. It is estimated that, as a result of this, by 2013 Social Security will be making greater payments to retirees than it will take in from the workforce. By 2032 the Social Security Trust Fund will be completely exhausted. Congress could rewrite this forecast by establishing individual savings accounts, restoring Social Security to permanent actuarial solvency, improving work incentives and/or resolving internal administrative problems.

Source: Republican Main St. Partnership Issue Paper: Fiscal Policy 98-RMSP3 on Sep 9, 1998

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Social Security.
  • Click here for policy papers on Social Security.
  • Click here for SenateMatch answers by Greg Ganske.
  • Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Social Security in The Forum.
Other candidates on Social Security: Greg Ganske on other issues:
IA Gubernatorial:
Tom Vilsack
IA Senatorial:
Art Small
Chuck Grassley
Daryl Northrop
Tom Harkin

Presidential:
George W. Bush
(Republican for President)
V.P.Dick Cheney
(Republican for V.P.)
Sen.John Kerry
(Democratic nominee for Pres.)
Sen.John Edwards
(Democratic nominee for V.P.)
Ralph Nader
(Reform nominee for Pres.)
Peter Camejo
(Reform nominee for V.P.)
David Cobb
(Green nominee for Pres.)
Michael Badnarik
(Libertarian nominee for Pres.)
Michael Peroutka
(Constitution nominee for Pres.)
2004 Senate Races:
(AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes
(AR)Holt v.Lincoln
(AZ)McCain v.Starky
(CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray
(CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta
(CT)Dodd v.Orchulli
(FL)Castor v.Martinez
(GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley
(IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop
(IL)Obama v.Keyes
(IN)Bayh v.Scott
(KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo
(LA)John v.Vitter
(MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin
(MO)Bond v.Farmer
(NC)Bowles v.Burr
(ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig
(NH)Granny D v.Gregg
(NV)Reid v.Ziser
(NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds
(OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich
(OK)Carson v.Coburn
(OR)Wyden v.King
(PA)Hoeffel v.Specter
(SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum
(SD)Daschle v.Thune
(UT)Bennett v.Van Dam
(VT)Leahy v.McMullen
(WA)Murray v.Nethercutt
(WI)Feingold v.Michels
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
HouseMatch
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes